2026:JHHC:21940 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6552 of 2026 Sudhir Hembrom, son of Ganesh Hembrom … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, APP --- 02/24.07.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 09.12.2025 in connection with S.T. Case No. 96 of 2026 arising out of Bengabad P.S. Case No. 146 of 2020, registered under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although the First Information Report was filed way back in the year, 2020 under sections 302, 201 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, but charge-sheet has been submitted under sections 302, 201, 376, 120-B of Indian Penal Code. He submits that the petitioner is not named in the First Information Report and therefore, the petitioner had no idea about the case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that name of the petitioner has come only in the confessional statement of the co- accused Suman Marandi, who faced the trial and he has already been acquitted. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner had filed anticipatory bail petition being A.B.P. No. 1017 of 2021 which was rejected on 20.12.2021. Thereafter, A.B.A. No. 369 of 2022 and subsequently, A.B.A. No. 3384 of 2022 were also filed which were dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 03.02.2022 and 10.06.2022 respectively. Thereafter, another anticipatory bail petition was filed before the learned court which was withdrawn on 09.12.2025. He submits that the petitioner is an employee of BSL and he is in custody since 09.12.2025. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that 2026:JHHC:21940 2 once the main accused has been acquitted, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the petitioner happens to be the husband of the deceased. He submits that the First Information Report was lodged when the dead body was found in forest in a decomposing condition. The learned counsel submits that the Confessional statement of Suman Marandi clearly stated that he had killed the victim at the instance of the petitioner after committing rape with her and the arms was also recovered from the co-accused Suman Marandi. 7. The learned counsel for the State has also submitted that the acquittal of Suman Marandi has no relevance. The petitioner is required to face the trial and the petitioner has avoided his arrest for a long time. 8. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner whose wife was killed and the body was found in a decomposed condition and it has come that the wife was killed at the instance of the petitioner and the petitioner has avoided his arrest since 2020, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. The petitioner cannot take any advantage of the acquittal of the co-accused. 9. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that charge has already been framed. He submits that some observation may be made so that the trial may be expedited. 10. The State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court. 11. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:24.07.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:25.07.2026